The extraterritorial human rights obligations of states

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 521-556

  King, Hugh ^a  

^a The High Court ^*  (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955741838     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: 17441021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngp028     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. 999 UNTS 171.
2. 213 UNTS 221; 312 ETS 5.
3. See, for example, Banković v Belgium 2001-XII; 44 EHRR SE5 at para. 61.
4. See R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26 [Al-Skeini].
5. R (Al-Saadoon) v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ. 7.
6. R (Hassan) v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 309 (Admin).
7. HRC General Comment 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May 2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13; 11 IHRR 905 (2004) at para. 10, provides: '[A] State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of the State Party, even if not situated within the territory of the State Party.' Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, 136 at para. 111, states: '[T]he International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is applicable in respect of acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory.'.
8. See also Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, 1 at paras 178-180.
9. See, for example, Buergenthal, 'To Respect and To Ensure: State Obligations and Permissible Derogations', in Henkin (ed.), The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981) 72 at 74.
10. Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (Kehl am Rhein: NP Engel, 1993) at 41-3.
11. Meron, 'Extraterritoriality of Human Rights', (1995) 89 American Journal of International Law 78 at 79.
12. Schein in, 'Extraterritorial Effect of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights', in Coomans and Kamminga (eds), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2004) 73.
13. See, for example, Dennis, 'Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation', (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 119.
14. See Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant: United States of America, 28 November 2005, CCPR/C/USA/3 at 109-12.
15. For competing interpretations of the preparatory works to the ICCPR on Article 2(1), cf Condorelli and De Sena, 'The Relevance of the Obligations Flowing from the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to US Courts Dealing with Guantánamo Detainees', (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 107 at 111.
16. In respect of the preparatory works to the ECHR on Article 1, cf. Banković v Belgium.
17. Loucaides, 'Determining the Extra-Territorial Effect of the European Convention: Facts, Jurisprudence and the Bankovíc Case', (2006) 4 European Human Rights Law Review 391 at 397.
18. (52/1979), CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979 (1981).
19. Lowe, 'Jurisdiction', in Evans (ed.), International Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 335.
20. Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) at 146.
21. The'fundamental principle governing enforcement jurisdiction' is that it 'may not be exercised in the territory of any other State without the consent of that State'.
22. See also Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991) at 257. The terms 'lawful jurisdiction', 'lawful competence', 'lawful authority' and 'lawful entitlement' are used interchangeably in this article.
23. But see Orakhelashvili, 'Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights', (2003) 14 European Journal of International Law 529 at 541.
24. Tomuschat stressed that although the ICCPR should not apply extraterritorially to situations where enforcing it would encounter exceptional obstacles, it was never envisaged to 'grant states parties unfettered discretionary power to carry out wilful and deliberate attacks against the freedom and personal integrity of their citizens living abroad.' Individual Opinion of Christian Tomuschat [emphasis added].
25. See, for example, the interesting case of Secretary of State for Defence v Smith, R (on the application of) [2009] EWCA Civ. 441.
26. Oxman, 'Jurisdiction of States', in Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law (New York: Elsevier, 1977) at 55.
27. See B(i) below.
28. (77/1980), CCPR/C/18/D/77/1980 (1983). See also Montero v Uruguay (106/1981), CCPR/C/18/D/106/1981 (1983) at para. 5.
29. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee regarding Israel, 21 August 2003, CCPR/CO/78/ISR.
30. McDougal and Feliciano, The International Law of War: Transnational Coercion and World Public Order (New Haven: New Haven Press, 1994) at 744-5.
31. See Mann, Studies in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973) at 4.
32. Akehurst, 'Jurisdiction in International Law', (1974) 46 British Year Book of International Law 145 at 148.
33. Cyprus v Turkey (1975) 2 DR 125 at 136 [emphasis added].
34. See, for example, X. v United Kingdom (1977) 12 DR 73 at 74.
35. Cyprus v Turkey (1978) 13 DR 85 at 149.
36. M. v Denmark (1992) 73 DR 193 at 196.
37. 2005-IV; 41 EHRR 985.
38. (1980) 21 DR 250.
39. (1996) 86-A DR 155.
40. See, for example, SC Res. 541, 18 November 1983, S/RES/541 (1983) at para. 2. For a general background, see Cyprus v Turkey 2001-I V; 35 EHRR 731 at paras 13-6.
41. Loizidou v Turkey (Preliminary Objections) A 310 (1995); 20 EHRR 99 [Loizidou (Preliminary Objections)].
42. Loizidou v Turkey (Merits) 1996-V I ; 23 EHRR 513 [Loizidou (Merits)].
43. See, for example, Demades v Turkey Application No. 16219/90, Judgment of 13 July 2003 at para. 17.
44. Xenides-Arestis v Turkey 44 EHRR SE 13.
45. See, for example, Rüth and Trilsch, 'Banković v Belgium', (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 168 at 171.
46. De Schutter, 'Globalization and Jurisdiction: Lessons from the European Convention on Human Rights', (2006) 6 Baltic Yearbook of International Law 185 at 195.
47. Wilde, 'Triggering State Obligations Extraterritorially: The Spatial Test in Certain Human Rights Treaties', (2007) 40 Israel Law Review 503 at 513.
48. Milanović, 'From Compromise to Principle: Clarifying the Concept of State Jurisdiction in Human Rights Treaties', (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review 411 at 417-19.
49. Roxstrom, Gibney and Einarson, 'The NATO Bombing Case (Banković et al. v Belgium et al.) and the Limits of Western Human Rights Protection', (2005) 23 Boston University International Law Journal 55 at 88.
50. See, for example, Ilaşcu v Moldova and Russia 2004-VII.
51. 40 EHRR 46 at para. 312.
52. Gentilhomme Schazff-Benhadji and Zerouki v France Application Nos 48205/99, 48207/99, and 48209/99, Judgment 14 May 2002 at para. 20; and Assanidze v Georgia 2004-II.
53. 39 EHRR 32 at para. 137.
54. See, for example, R (Al-Saadoon) v Secretary of State for Defence.
55. To support its conclusion, the House of Lords also relied heavily on a remark from Bankovic that the ECHR operates in an essentially regional context and in the legal space ('espace juridique') of states parties.
56. For a critical appraisal of the espace juridique dictum in Banković and its limited significance as a legal principle circumscribing the scope of the ECHR, see Lawson, 'Life after Banković: On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights', in Coomans and Kamminga (eds).
57. Wilde, 'The "Legal Space" or "Espace Juridique" of the European Convention on Human Rights: Is it Relevant to Extraterritorial State Action', (2005) 2 European Human Rights Law Review 115.
58. Thienel, 'The ECHR in Iraq: The Judgment of the House of Lords in R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence', (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice 115 at 119-20.
59. Although Lord Brown acknowledges (at para. 128) that 'Bankovic... stands... for the indivisible nature of article 1 jurisdiction', he, unlike Lord Rodger, also concedes (at para. 130) that in some 'highly specific situations', only a limited range of ECHR rights may be applicable. However, he fails to explain why a departure from the indivisible principle is acceptable in some situations, and not in others.
60. This conclusion is most clearly apparent in the opinion of Lord Brown.
61. See R (Al-Saadoon) v Secretary of State for Defence, [2008] EWHC 3098 (Admin) at paras 52 and 82.
62. Mantouvalou, 'Extending Judicial Control in International Law: Human Rights Treaties and Extraterritoriality', (2005) 9 International Journal of Human Rights 147 at 160.
63. See also Gondek, 'Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Territorial Focus in the Age of Globalization?', (2005) 52 Netherlands International Law Review 349 at 364.
64. A 199 (1991); 13 EHRR 839.
65. X. v Federal Republic of Germany (1965) 17 H RC D 42 at 47.
66. For the idea that persons abroad affected by a state's lawful legislation fall within the state's 'jurisdiction', and that therefore such legislation must comply with the state's human rights obligations, see Gueye v France (196/1985), CCPR/C/35/D/196/1985 (1989).
67. See generally Steiner, Alston and Goodman, International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, 3rd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 185-9.
68. See, for example, the 1903 lease agreement between the United States and Cuba in respect of Guantanamo Bay, pursuant to which 'the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States... the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas', cited in Rasul v Bush (2004) 124 SC 2686 at 2690-1.
69. Where the Court observed that the 'territories occupied by Israel have for over 37 years been subject to its territorial jurisdiction as the occupying Power.' [emphasis added].
70. Tomuschat, Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) at 110. Article 9(3) of the ICCPR provides in part: 'Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to a trial within a reasonable time or to release'. Article 14(1) provides in part: 'All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit of law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.'.
71. See the discussion at B (ii) below.
72. Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993) at 4-5.
73. Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907, 36 Stat. 2277.
74. Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949, 75 UNTS 287.
75. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts 1977, 1125 UNTS 3.
76. Dinstein, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) at 87.
77. See, generally, Sassòli, 'Legislation and Maintenance of Public Order and Civil Life by Occupying Powers', (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law 661.
78. Pictet (ed.), The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Commentary IV Geneva Conventions relative to the Protection of Civilians inTime of War (Geneva: ICRC, 1958) at 336.
79. R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA Civ. 1609 at para. 198.
80. Indeed, the Court noted that 'the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article1of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law'.
81. This admittedly raises the problem, brought to light by an astute observer, of a state, perhaps through agreement with another, purposely limiting its extraterritorial legal powers in order to avoid many of its human rights obligations.
82. Consular relations are governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, adopted in 1963 to consolidate customary international law: see Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1980, 3 at para. 45.
83. Article 5(a), Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963, 596 UNTS 261.
84. Article 5(d), Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
85. See A (ii) under 'Consular officials' above.
86. It is likely, for example, that fair trial rights are implicated by the Consulate's function of providing assistance to nationals who have breached local laws, especially where the nationals may be unfamiliar with local laws.
87. It is on this basis that the English case of R (Hassan) v Secretary of State can be criticised. See King, 'Unravelling the Extraterritorial Riddle: An Analysis of R (Hassan) v Secretary of State for Defence', (2009) 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice 633.
88. Article 12(2), ICCPR.
89. See B (i) under 'Factual authority or control over persons' above.
90. 41 EHRR 27.
91. In the event, there was insufficient proof to establish that Turkish forces had been in the area where the shepherdesses' relatives were killed. Consequently, the ECtHR held the complaint to be inadmissible:.
92. Application No. 44587/98, Decision of 28 September 2006.
93. Application No. 60167/00, Decision of 28 June 2007.
94. See also Solomou v Turkey Application No. 36832/97, Judgment of 24 June 2008 at para. 45.
95. HRC General Comment 6: The right to life (art. 6), 30 April 1982, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1.
96. 1 IHRR 2 (1994) at para. 1.
97. See Hannum, 'Bombing for Peace: Collateral Damage and Human Rights', (2002) 96 American Society of International Law Proceedings 95 at 98.